Policy

Breaking the Cycle: How Car Dependency Traps Low-Income Households

People familiar with my views on transport poverty are aware that I believe car dependency is one of the primary drivers of transport poverty. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) in the UK has just released a report called "The Transport Challenge for Low-Income Households."

Key Takeaways

• Transport policy can make a material difference to people’s finances and access to the things they need.
• Cars place a financial burden on many low-income households. Those with a car on the lowest incomes spend equivalent to one-quarter of their income on it.
• Across all incomes, average weekly transport expenditure for households that own a vehicle is £108, compared with £13 for households that do not own a vehicle.
• 75 per cent of people on low incomes say the cost of running a car makes it difficult to afford other essentials.
• 66 per cent say the same of the cost of public transport
• Car centricity in the UK transport system means many people feel they need their own car, even when it places huge pressure on their household budget.
• Only 25 per cent of individuals in households with an annual income of £14,999 or less in England have regular access to a bicycle.
• Key recommendations:

1. Consolidate, devolve and increase funding for local bus services.
2. Provide statutory guidance on socially necessary services, and expected service levels and standards.
3. A fresh approach to transport concessions, devolving decisions on this and improving funding and guidance.
4. National targets for increased active travel and bus passenger numbers.
5. Road space reallocation by local and combined authorities to support modal shift
6. A social leasing scheme for electric vehicles and reducing the VAT rate on public chargers.
7. A Road Safety Strategy founded on the principle of the Safe System and a vision of zero fatalities and serious injuries.
8. A new national measure for transport-related social exclusion and a target.
9. A vision-led approach to transport appraisal and investment.
10. Public engagement in transport business planning and policymaking through a social inclusion advisory panel and the use of citizens’ juries.

Comment

The report offers an excellent analysis of the challenges and critiques the UK's existing car-dependent transport system, providing valuable recommendations.

However, the UK's finances are a mess, and the priority is not transport funding. Therefore, reallocating funding from within existing resources will be key.

Fortunately, there is plenty of scope. Low fares and concessions are poorly targeted, not focusing on those most in need. Reforms in these areas will be controversial but necessary, and the report's third recommendation should support this reform. In particular, low-income households should have access to mobility wallets (see here) that can be spent on transport services, not just public transport.

What next?

Do you know how transport poverty impacts low-income households in your area? How well targeted are your transport policies at supporting them?

Ridesharing

How Ridesharing Changes Car Acquisition But Not Disposal

Since ridesharing (or ridesourcing) emerged, it has been controversial. Some research has shown that they have tended to divert patronage away from public transport, particularly buses, and caused an increase in vehicle miles travelled, primarily due to deadheading and induced travel demand.

However, there has always been a debate about whether ridesharing would encourage people to give up their cars and so deliver an improvement to the transport system overall. This research paper has looked at the issue.

Key Takeaways

• The paper used the UK's Household Longitudinal Study dataset from 2009 to 2019 to examine how ridesourcing affects the changes in household car ownership.
• The results suggest that the availability of ridesourcing is associated with a lower likelihood of acquiring a car.
• However, there was no increase in the likelihood of disposing of a car.
• The results are consistent with the findings that multiple-car households are more likely to dispose of one of their cars when compared to single-car households, and less likely to acquire another one.
• UK households residing in urban areas are less inclined to acquire another car in the presence of ridesharing if they already own two or three cars.
• In rural areas, the availability of ridesharing has not led to a statistically significant change in car ownership.
• Curiously, the higher the number of buses per 1,000 people in the area, the lower the probability of shedding a car. The paper did not identify why this was the case.
• Under certain circumstances, car ownership levels may be lowered in the presence of ridesharing. Particularly, ridesharing has the potential to substitute for a second household car.
• Policies may need to differentiate between urban and rural areas to help integrate with public transport in urban areas while improving overall accessibility in underserved rural areas.
• Better accessibility of amenities, along with more reliable and higher-quality public transport services in urban areas, could make private cars less of a necessity in the presence of ridesharing.
• Ridesharing should be implemented as an effective connector to public transport services.

Comment

This study is important in multiple ways. Firstly, there is a need to think differently about ridesharing policies between urban and rural areas.

Secondly, it reinforces the idea that providing carrots to reduce car use are ineffective on their own; you still need measures that discourage car use.

Thirdly, it makes me wonder about the interaction between car sharing and ridesharing.

Finally, it matters as we consider the transition to Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) and debate whether people will prefer to own AVs themselves or use robotaxis. This research suggests that most people will want to continue to own their vehicles although there might be reasons why this will not be the case for AVs.

What next?

Do you know how ridesharing is impacting the transport system in your area? Is it regulated in a way that improves or worsens outcomes?

Policy

The Congestion Solution: Evidence-Based Strategies That Actually Work

Congestion is a growing problem in many of our towns and cities, so what can we do to address it? This paper from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute in Canada provides some suggestions.

Key Takeaways

• How congestion is measured significantly affects its estimated magnitude.
• Comprehensive indicators measure congestion costs.
• In compact and multimodal cities, congestion is more intense, but residents suffer less overall because they have better travel options and drive less during peak periods.
• Planning decisions often involve trade-offs between mobility (travel speed) and accessibility (time and money required to reach desired services and activities).
• Ignoring these impacts exaggerates the benefits of roadway expansion and undervalues other congestion reduction strategies.
• Traffic congestion tends to maintain a self-limiting equilibrium: it increases to the point that delays limit further peak-period vehicle travel.
• Adding more people to an area increases the number of trips, but with good planning, this is offset by shorter trip distances and reduced automobile mode shares.
• Many congestion cost estimates are biased by using free-flow baseline speeds, excessive travel time values and exaggerated fuel and emission impact estimates, and so represent an upper-bound value. These biases tend to exaggerate congestion costs and roadway expansion benefits.
• Optimal congestion reduction programs involve the following:

1. Improve space-efficient transport options, including walking, cycling, public transit, ridesharing, carsharing and telecommuting.
2. Manage roadways to favor space-efficient modes. These include transit-priority control systems as well as bus and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on major roadways.
3. Implement support programs such as commute trip reduction and mobility management marketing programs wherever appropriate.
4. Apply decongestion pricing (road tolls that are higher during congested periods), with prices that maintain optimal traffic volumes (LOS C). If possible, apply prices system-wide.
5. Implement pricing reforms, such as revenue generating tolls, parking pricing, fuel price increases, and distance-based insurance and registration fees.
6. Only consider urban roadway expansions if, after implementing all previous strategies, project costs are recovered through user fees.

Comment

It is no surprise that our cities and towns are becoming ever more congested. Just compare the strategies they employ to reduce congestion versus what works - lots of roadway expansion and, in many places, limited use of other methods.

What Next?

Are your analyses overestimating the benefits of roadway expansion? Can you progress alternative strategies to roadway expansion?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what I came across this week:

• Many places have experimented with microtransit (also known as on-demand transport services) in recent years, but they have rarely been successful. The Changing Lanes ​blog​ explains why they do not scale.
• Is the way we model traffic partly to blame for why we continue to build roads in a futile attempt to reduce congestion? This YouTube video explains why they think that is the case.
• Europe is renowned for its rail. This report examines the state of the EU’s rail infrastructure, identifies deficiencies, and makes recommendations to address them.

Blog

Beyond Compliant Stations: Why Disability Access Laws Need To Evolve

This week, my blog argued that we need to amend disability access laws to take account of the holistic transport needs of people with disabilities, not just making stations accessibility compliant.

Innovation

​Asia’s first fully driverless bus service​

Yes, it only works on a fixed 1.2km loop connecting three hotels and a shopping mall, but it is still a milestone.

Tool

Measuring the integration of micromobility and public transport

​This paper describes a new network analysis tool for integrating micromobility and public transport.